Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

Neuro5i5

Neuro5i5

CAGiversary!
Feedback
151 (100%)
This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 12 Downvote
Rage 2, new Doom, new metro, cyberpunk, and that die twice ninja gaiden esque game all looked great. The rest...meh.

Battletoads teaser got me more hyped than ES6 or starfield.
 
pasports31 said:
I think they knew they were gonna get a lot of backlash with FO76 so thought this would be a way of satiating fans.

Really they should've just made FO3 remastered, it would've been a more effective way of accomplishing that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that probably was the idea, but in the long run I don't see how it helps all that much. I liked it better when they'd only publicly announce games that were close to release. Now every E3 for the next 3-4 years is still gonna be all about "Will they finally show off TES VI?" And when they don't show any footage because massive games take a real long time to make, they'll face the same backlash they were getting before they announced the game to begin with. But I guess they get the "win" this year, so that's something.

 
Master Miguel said:
Rage 2, new Doom, new metro, cyberpunk, and that die twice ninja gaiden esque game all looked great. The rest...meh.

Battletoads teaser got me more hyped than ES6 or starfield.
Click to expand...
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice looks awesome.

We can always count on From Software.

I wish we got more than a teaser for Battletoads though.

 
From Software's ninja game is one I have high hopes for.  I did not watch any of the E3 stuff so I am just checking out trailers now to see what looked good.  Kinda burned out on racing games at the moment but the newest Forza looked pretty good regardless. 

Not sure how I feel about Ninja Theory becoming part of Microsoft.  I like their games and have zero interest in getting an Xbox and the Windows store is such garbage that I would almost rather skip a game entirely than get it on there.  I was happy to see another Devil May Cry game.

fuck the C&C mobile game.  It and everybody involved with it in any way.  Grind them up and feed them to hogs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pasports31 said:
For years, I would play Bethesda games, getting quietly immersed in the huge world, and would think "The only thing that can improve this is a bunch of other players jumping around and blowing me up while i'm trying to explore. Also minecraft."
Click to expand...
That was my feeling about ESO. "A secret tunnel leading to a lost ancient barrow? The only thing that could make this better would be a random wizard, bunny hopping in circles and spamming fire bolts"

 
Master Miguel said:
Rage 2, new Doom, new metro, cyberpunk, and that die twice ninja gaiden esque game all looked great. The rest...meh.

Battletoads teaser got me more hyped than ES6 or starfield.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with this, minus metro (wasn't a huge fan of the 1st two games), and I don't care much one way or the other about battletoads. I will say knowing Chris Avellone is working on Dying Light 2 has me interested.

Insomniac_34 said:
Yeah, that probably was the idea, but in the long run I don't see how it helps all that much. I liked it better when they'd only publicly announce games that were close to release. Now every E3 for the next 3-4 years is still gonna be all about "Will they finally show off TES VI?" And when they don't show any footage because massive games take a real long time to make, they'll face the same backlash they were getting before they announced the game to begin with. But I guess they get the "win" this year, so that's something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed. I don't think it makes much sense to confirm two games everybody knows they're working on just to try to get people to calm down about FO76, particularly since their approach has been to only announce things that are coming out in the coming year. I wonder if this will mark a shift in Bethesda's approach to E3 though, since the last two years they got criticized for booking a conference without a whole lot to show.

For real though, If I were Bethesda I'd have one of their studios start making remasters of old games and come out with a new one every few years, maybe release one in between each new BGS game. Their graphics have aged horribly and people are pretty nostalgic about their games so I don't think it'd be too hard to convince people to buy an updated version of Morrowind/Oblivion/FO3/NV. Plus it'd give them something to satiate people while they wait for a single player game. Have to imagine Morrowind with Fo76's graphical capacity would sell insanely well. I know it's not an easy undertaking to update something like Morrowind but I feel like they really would make a ton off it.

 
I didn't know BAH well...  My work schedule has always left Bro nights as something as a near impossibility but I'll remember the time in PUBG and Rocket League with a smile.  He is missed.

 
So Bethesda is modeling itself after Blizzard. Got it.

I'll stay hopefully optimistic until I see the ship actually taking on water. But, I have my life preserver in hand. Just in case.
 
Syntax Error said:
That was my feeling about ESO. "A secret tunnel leading to a lost ancient barrow? The only thing that could make this better would be a random wizard, bunny hopping in circles and spamming fire bolts"
Click to expand...
Seeing other players online bunny hopping and/or rocket jumping in a Bethesda game might look weird given how often horrible, stiff, and janky their animations normally look...

 
How many years after a TES game is released is it in good playable form?  

I'd actually welcome a C&C tower defense game.

Is Cyberpunk the only original IP to get excited about?  Everything else seems to be sequels, sequels, sequels.  

 
MysterD said:
What's to discuss??!?

Most fans of Bethesda's games like their games b/c they are offline games that can be modded however you see fit...without dealing the online-players, always-online DRM, possible cheating by other players, and any other MMO non-sense that comes w/ those games.

Putting a Bethesda game online fully...well, that makes their games basically just another MMO type of game; it's what happened w/ ESO basically. We got enough of MMO's, online-only, and MMO-lites out there already - and we know since this is the new AAA thing, we're going to see more of these.

By putting a BethSoft game online, you basically lose all of the stuff that made Bethesda's offline games so special in the first place - such as mods & big huge open-worlds that you can experience alone.

EDIT:

What makes this worse, is that this is not a new franchise they are doing this online-only stuff with. It might be more forgivable, if this was done w/ a new franchise/IP. So, this also makes matters even worse. Fallout has an already huge fan-base and most of those gamers have certain expectations....and modding & offline gameplay are those things.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this... and I want to add that on some level Bethesda has always used their fans (at least on PC) to fix their games... This is no longer going to be an option.

 
FoxAssGamer said:
How many years after a TES game is released is it in good playable form?

I'd actually welcome a C&C tower defense game.

Is Cyberpunk the only original IP to get excited about? Everything else seems to be sequels, sequels, sequels.
Click to expand...
Devil May Cry 5

Hype

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll counter all the doom and gloom about Fallout 76 by saying that it's not an MMO, so comparing it to an MMO is stupid.  Yes, I get it's technically an MMO, but when I think MMO I think WOW and Black Desert Online and all the other stupid crap and this is not that.  I'll also say it's Fallout 76, not Fallout 5 so clearly there will be a Fallout 5 at some point and this is just a side game they decided to try so kudos for that.  ESO came out and people got all upset and look you still got your TES 6 announcement so you'll be able to ride your horsies and kill dragons again soon enough. 

 
Like Fox, I'm glad they're trying something different on the Fallout universe. I may not like it or even play it (who knows)... But it's a side game, a spinoff or something like that. I hope they do and try some more things different on that amazing universe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
who was that smug asshole like "gheh I don't know why ANYONE ever expects Elder Scrolls 6, they've already said they aren't making it!" as though Bethesda is known for being truthful in any way, shape, or form

 
FoxAssGamer said:
I'll counter all the doom and gloom about Fallout 76 by saying that it's not an MMO, so comparing it to an MMO is stupid. Yes, I get it's technically an MMO, but when I think MMO I think WOW and Black Desert Online and all the other stupid crap and this is not that.
Click to expand...
It's also Rust and Ark, etc and this seems more akin to those. Fallout: Rust doesn't really appeal to me but so it goes. If it turns out to be the best thing since toast, I'll pick it up then. Not crazy about killing off the independent modding community either.

You can get excited about We Happy Few, if you'd like. That's a new IP. I think, after 2077, winner of the New IP Hype Parade is Anthem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
unknown.png


Leak

 
FoxAssGamer said:
I'll counter all the doom and gloom about Fallout 76 by saying that it's not an MMO, so comparing it to an MMO is stupid. Yes, I get it's technically an MMO, but when I think MMO I think WOW and Black Desert Online and all the other stupid crap and this is not that. I'll also say it's Fallout 76, not Fallout 5 so clearly there will be a Fallout 5 at some point and this is just a side game they decided to try so kudos for that. ESO came out and people got all upset and look you still got your TES 6 announcement so you'll be able to ride your horsies and kill dragons again soon enough.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's not really that dumb to compare it to an MMO because for one, you yourself state it's "technically an MMO," and for two creating a game like this is completely at odds with what a lot of people find appealing in Bethesda games, whether it's a traditional MMO experience or not is somewhat irrelevant to the point.

Beyond that, for me (and I'd imagine, most people) the doom and gloom isn't necessarily that FO76 is a thing so much as it is that since FO76 is coming out this year it means you probably have to wait another two years minimum before a traditional Bethesda game comes out. So the excitement at seeing FO76 announced only to have the carpet pulled out via leaks and then the presentation last night about it not being at all what you would hope is frustrating for a lot of people.

 
pasports31 said:
I mean, it's not really that dumb to compare it to an MMO because for one, you yourself state it's "technically an MMO," and for two creating a game like this is completely at odds with what a lot of people find appealing in Bethesda games, whether it's a traditional MMO experience or not is somewhat irrelevant to the point.

Beyond that, for me (and I'd imagine, most people) the doom and gloom isn't necessarily that FO76 is a thing so much as it is that since FO76 is coming out this year it means you probably have to wait another two years minimum before a traditional Bethesda game comes out. So the excitement at seeing FO76 announced only to have the carpet pulled out via leaks and then the presentation last night about it not being at all what you would hope is frustrating for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
I'll counter with this:

1. Yes, it is dumb, because technically it's an MMO in the same way PUBG is an MMO. Any game with a lot of people on one server/world can be considered an MMO and technically WOW is an RPGMMO, but when you think MMO you think of a specific game style and this is not it. So it does make a difference. Maybe if you people just want to complain because it's not Fallout 5 then they don't care where it's an MMO, Survival, or Clicker game, but for people who like different types of games, it matters. So I would say it is very relevant especially considering what Fallout is - a post-apocalyptic series. Survival is a perfect direction for them to take the series.

2. Technically Fallout 3, NV, and 5 were way different that the original Fallout 1 and 2. And what about tactics? I wasn't around back then so maybe people were enraged at Tactics or Fallout 3, but if they were, they seemed to have adjusted fine to the direction the series took.

3. Not getting a "traditional" Fallout game for two more years is a valid gripe, but that's really the first mention of it I've seen. Most of the comments are whiny criticisms of something that no one has even played yet or even knows what it is. It's just speculation and whining about "THIS GAME IS NOT WHAT I WANTED" and not "I'll have to wait a few more years, that sucks."

 
Well RIP as Microsoft did than in error:

https://twitter.com/Wario64/status/1006195614349062144/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%231006195614349062144

 
FoxAssGamer said:
I'll counter with this:

1. Yes, it is dumb, because technically it's an MMO in the same way PUBG is an MMO. Any game with a lot of people on one server/world can be considered an MMO and technically WOW is an RPGMMO, but when you think MMO you think of a specific game style and this is not it.
Click to expand...
When I think of WoW or BDO, I think of "MMORPG" which this is not. However, I consider games like Ark or Rust to be MMO games -- games that rely on other players to make up a substantial portion of the game by (for example) creating structures and acting as antagonists be it via direct PvP or even just resource competition. They're also built around that expectation -- you could play Rust solo on some private server but it'll be a pretty uninteresting experience in a hurry. Even Ark, once you get over the survival hump, becomes increasingly empty without other players although it has an offline mode. That is actually the style that jumps to mind if I hear "MMO" not followed by "RPG".

Maybe Fallout 76 will avoid feeling like single-player Ark and provide a robust experience no matter how you play it but I'm doubtful since MMO games are designed to be played as MMO's even if they offer an offline style mode.

 
Syntax Error said:
When I think of WoW or BDO, I think of "MMORPG" which this is not. However, I consider games like Ark or Rust to be MMO games -- games that rely on other players to make up a substantial portion of the game by (for example) creating structures and acting as antagonists be it via direct PvP or even just resource competition. They're also built around that expectation -- you could play Rust solo on some private server but it'll be a pretty uninteresting experience in a hurry. Even Ark, once you get over the survival hump, becomes increasingly empty without other players although it has an offline mode. That is actually the style that jumps to mind if I hear "MMO" not followed by "RPG".

Maybe Fallout 76 will avoid feeling like single-player Ark and provide a robust experience no matter how you play it but I'm doubtful since MMO games are designed to be played as MMO's even if they offer an offline style mode.
Click to expand...
I'm not as old as you, so I don't know all the history of MMOs, but all I've ever known as MMOs is WOW and games like WOW. And I see you mention Rust and ARK, but those are pretty new, so what was an MMO before them or even before WOW? When I think MMOs I think silly fantasy people running around wearing out their mice and auto running horses in circle to level up.

 
I don't think people generally used the term "MMO" much prior to that sort of world building experience unless they were just shorthanding MMORPG.  The RPG got dropped to say "This is a game that offers a longer-term or more complete world experience than an online competitive shooter/racer but without the same NPC/quest structure of a true MMORPG".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FoxAssGamer said:
I'll counter with this:

1. Yes, it is dumb, because technically it's an MMO in the same way PUBG is an MMO. Any game with a lot of people on one server/world can be considered an MMO and technically WOW is an RPGMMO, but when you think MMO you think of a specific game style and this is not it. So it does make a difference. Maybe if you people just want to complain because it's not Fallout 5 then they don't care where it's an MMO, Survival, or Clicker game, but for people who like different types of games, it matters. So I would say it is very relevant especially considering what Fallout is - a post-apocalyptic series. Survival is a perfect direction for them to take the series.

2. Technically Fallout 3, NV, and 5 were way different that the original Fallout 1 and 2. And what about tactics? I wasn't around back then so maybe people were enraged at Tactics or Fallout 3, but if they were, they seemed to have adjusted fine to the direction the series took.

3. Not getting a "traditional" Fallout game for two more years is a valid gripe, but that's really the first mention of it I've seen. Most of the comments are whiny criticisms of something that no one has even played yet or even knows what it is. It's just speculation and whining about "THIS GAME IS NOT WHAT I WANTED" and not "I'll have to wait a few more years, that sucks."
Click to expand...
Well, whether it's an MMO or not is only a relevant point if this type of game strongly appeals to you or not (iirc you really like survival games, so the fact that it's that an not a traditional MMO is probably a very relevant point to you). My point was that if you're looking for a typical Bethesda single player game, whether it's the typical WOW type MMO or a Destiny/PUBG/Fortnite/etc style game that's entirely online but not swarmed with thousands of people is pretty irrelevant.

I've seen people make the "well people adjusted fine from FO 1/2 to 3 and NV" argument, but to me it's not really relevant for a couple reasons...for one the FO 1+2 style of game really wasn't popular at all by the time FO 3 released, and FO 1/2 released ten years before Fallout 3, and Bethesda obviously is not the same company as Black Isle. Meaning it wouldn't be a realistic expectation that Bethesda was going to spend money to acquire Fallout's rights just to release a turn based isometric RPG, whereas seeing how all Bethesda has ever done is single player games FPS rpgs, and they've been very successful doing it, it's not unrealistic at all to continue to hope to see that from them. Beyond that I'd argue that turning an isometric turn based single player roleplaying game into a first person shooter single player roleplaying game is a much smaller shift than turning an fps single player rpg into an online survival game with apparently no human npcs. I'd argue there is larger crossover appeal from isometric to fps rpgs than there is from fps rpgs to online survival games; one is the same genre with different gameplay focuses while the other is entirely different genres.

And while you might not be seeing people mention specifically having to wait longer for a game they want, I'd imagine that's exactly where the criticism is coming from on an emotional level. If FO76 were releasing simultaneously with Starfield or ES6 or FO5 I'm sure people would still bitch a bit about FO76, but I don't think people would care nearly as much, I know I wouldn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The technical definition is less important than what we factually know about it so far.  I haven't bothered reading any stories/corrections today but from Todd's own lips was:

* Entirely-on-line.

* Character is server-based/saved to a server.

* You are 'sharded' with 12-20 or so people in one world.

* You can build anywhere.

* There are nukes you can take control over and nuke people.

* He also alluded to some level of PvP or at least suggested it.

Stuff I intuited from the footage/common sense:

* Building costs caps versus resources so there's an issue on how caps are rewarded/acquired.

* You cannot have mods on an 'entirely online' game. (see below)

* Or if you can have mods they are officially approved mods you purchase through Creation Club.

Of course, if they have come out today and said you can play off-line or own your own private server/shard, then fine, there aren't too many issues.  If not, then regardless of whether you call this an MMO or a Ffuffle-snuffle-ker-doodle, the issues above are problematic.

I don't think any of us expected a Fallout 5 so soon but possibly expected a New Vegas a la Fallout New Orleans, Chicago, whatever.  That this game is set only 20 years after the War (and hundreds before the current narrative time line of the fallout games) and in the fairly obscure location of West Virginia means they're giving this the ESO treatment -- separate stuff by time/geography and lore doesn't matter too much.

Everything about this makes it closer to ESO than a traditional game.  Microtransactions have not reared their ugly head yet but this is Bethesda we are talking about.  A lot of the DLC for Fallout 4 was of the crappy/pay $5-10 for extra features variety.  And then paid mods became a thing.

And yeah... they revealed TES6.  But assuming a release date no earlier than 2020 that would make it NINE YEARS after Skyrim.  The reality is games like ESO and Fallout 76 can delay development of the single player games depending on which studios work on them.  Or, at least, take the pressure off of Bethesda to produce single players games on a quicker time scale.  Case-in-point: When is the last time Valve has developed a non iterative/rip-off title?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mooby said:
Of course, if they have come out today and said you can play off-line or own your own private server/shard, then fine, there aren't too many issues.
Click to expand...
The primary issue in that case is that there probably isn't much game there. These sorts of games, sans other players, become a fairly boring version of Minecraft but with less creative control. We don't know that for sure yet, but it seems the usual circumstance for this style of game.

 
pasports31 said:
Well, whether it's an MMO or not is only a relevant point if this type of game strongly appeals to you or not (iirc you really like survival games, so the fact that it's that an not a traditional MMO is probably a very relevant point to you). My point was that if you're looking for a typical Bethesda single player game, whether it's the typical WOW type MMO or a Destiny/PUBG/Fortnite/etc style game that's entirely online but not swarmed with thousands of people is pretty irrelevant.

I've seen people make the "well people adjusted fine from FO 1/2 to 3 and NV" argument, but to me it's not really relevant for a couple reasons...for one the FO 1+2 style of game really wasn't popular at all by the time FO 3 released, and FO 1/2 released ten years before Fallout 3, and Bethesda obviously is not the same company as Black Isle. Meaning it wouldn't be a realistic expectation that Bethesda was going to spend money to acquire Fallout's rights just to release a turn based isometric RPG, whereas seeing how all Bethesda has ever done is single player games FPS rpgs, and they've been very successful doing it, it's not unrealistic at all to continue to hope to see that from them. Beyond that I'd argue that turning an isometric turn based single player roleplaying game into a first person shooter single player roleplaying game is a much smaller shift than turning an fps single player rpg into an online survival game with apparently no human npcs. I'd argue there is larger crossover appeal from isometric to fps rpgs than there is from fps rpgs to online survival games; one is the same genre with different gameplay focuses while the other is entirely different genres.

And while you might not be seeing people mention specifically having to wait longer for a game they want, I'd imagine that's exactly where the criticism is coming from on an emotional level. If FO76 were releasing simultaneously with Starfield or ES6 or FO5 I'm sure people would still bitch a bit about FO76, but I don't think people would care nearly as much, I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
What about Prey or Doom or Wolfenstein or Dishonored or Rage or Brink or Wet? I know we're getting into some published vs developed territory, but saying Bethesda has only ever done single player FPS RPGs is a pretty antiquated view.

Personally, I'm always excited when an established company with a lot of resources behind it and a history of quality tackles something new, especially a genre I like.

There were 4 years between Morrowind and Oblivion and 5 years after that was Skyrim. So far it's been 7 years since Skyrim. It was 5 years between New Vegas and FO5. So it's been 3 years since FO5. It's not like we know for sure that FO6 is going to be "delayed" at all due to FO 76. Expecting FO6 this year was a but premature. With Skyrim, I don't think it was ESO that delayed it, but just the advances in technology. I mean there's been a Skyrim remaster and a Skyrim VR. I expect TES 6 to be a pretty big jump from Skyrim, both graphically and in game play, possibly shipping with VR off the bat and maybe even a new engine so the time in between games isn't too crazy. Basically, I think the concerns about having to wait longer for FO6 are unwarranted and exaggerated given Bethesda's history and time between releases.

 
Syntax Error said:
The primary issue in that case is that there probably isn't much game there. These sorts of games, sans other players, become a fairly boring version of Minecraft but with less creative control. We don't know that for sure yet, but it seems the usual circumstance for this style of game.
Click to expand...
Todd talked about the six regions and a lot in the world but we won't know more until further interviews. It remains to be seen whether there is an actual narrative or whether it's mostly radiant-style questing. Although, I tend to agree that it is most likely the latter. It typically takes Bethesda studios five or more years to develop a narrative game (and when they do it's usually mediocre at best in terms of writing/content). Are we to believe they did the same in two years? IMO, this game was almost certainly being developed concurrently with Fallout 4 or, at least, was something they had in mind while developing Fallout 4. And the decision to green light it was probably informed by ESO sales/revenue.

 
FoxAssGamer said:
What about Prey or Doom or Wolfenstein or Dishonored or Rage or Brink or Wet? I know we're getting into some published vs developed territory...
Click to expand...
That is huge distinction that, let's be honest, is fatal to your argument. Bethesda didn't even develop ESO. I think the last non single player FPS-RPG Bethesda DEVELOPED was Redguard in 1998 and that was still single player.

It's a troubling trend when we see stuff like Fallout/Skyrim VR, Enhanced Editions with Creation Club, pseudo-MMO, and mobile games being shoveled out at an alarming rate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mooby said:
That is huge distinction that, let's be honest, is fatal to your argument. Bethesda didn't even develop ESO. I think the last non single player FPS-RPG Bethesda DEVELOPED was Redguard in 1998 and that was still single player.

It's a troubling trend when we see stuff like Fallout/Skyrim VR, Enhanced Editions with Creation Club, pseudo-MMO, and mobile games being shoveled out at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...
But FO4 and Skyrim weren't developed solely by Bethesda. All these other studios that make these other games have been pitching in with all recent Bethesda stuff, and rightfully so. I think the distinction between Bethesda published and developed is becoming less important.

 
FoxAssGamer said:
What about Prey or Doom or Wolfenstein or Dishonored or Rage or Brink or Wet? I know we're getting into some published vs developed territory, but saying Bethesda has only ever done single player FPS RPGs is a pretty antiquated view.

Personally, I'm always excited when an established company with a lot of resources behind it and a history of quality tackles something new, especially a genre I like.

There were 4 years between Morrowind and Oblivion and 5 years after that was Skyrim. So far it's been 7 years since Skyrim. It was 5 years between New Vegas and FO5. So it's been 3 years since FO5. It's not like we know for sure that FO6 is going to be "delayed" at all due to FO 76. Expecting FO6 this year was a but premature. With Skyrim, I don't think it was ESO that delayed it, but just the advances in technology. I mean there's been a Skyrim remaster and a Skyrim VR. I expect TES 6 to be a pretty big jump from Skyrim, both graphically and in game play, possibly shipping with VR off the bat and maybe even a new engine so the time in between games isn't too crazy. Basically, I think the concerns about having to wait longer for FO6 are unwarranted and exaggerated given Bethesda's history and time between releases.
Click to expand...
Prey/doom/brink/etc are irrelevant to the discussion because we're talking about Bethesda Game Studios, not Bethesda the publisher. The only thing Bethesda game studios is known for are single player rpgs.

As for your latter paragraph...from 2002-2015 there were 6 single player rpgs from Bethesda, 5 from BGS (NV developed by Obsidian). That's an average of one every 2.16 years, if you take out New Vegas it's one every 2.6 years. Since Skyrim came out in 2011 there has been one single player rpg by bethesda in 7 years, and let's say Starfield comes out in 2020, that'll be 2 in 9 years. To say FO76 hasn't slowed down Bethesda's single player output isn't supported by previous game development windows for them, and even without that information just isn't supported by basic common sense - if they're working on a multiplayer title it means they have less resources to allocate to other titles as opposed if they were singularly focused on a single player. Of course it's slowing it down, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 
pasports31 said:
Prey/doom/brink/etc are irrelevant to the discussion because we're talking about Bethesda Game Studios, not Bethesda the publisher. The only thing Bethesda game studios is known for are single player rpgs.

As for your latter paragraph...from 2002-2015 there were 6 single player rpgs from Bethesda, 5 from BGS (NV developed by Obsidian). That's an average of one every 2.16 years, if you take out New Vegas it's one every 2.6 years. Since Skyrim came out in 2011 there has been one single player rpg by bethesda in 7 years, and let's say Starfield comes out in 2020, that'll be 2 in 9 years. To say FO76 hasn't slowed down Bethesda's single player output isn't supported by previous game development windows for them, and even without that information just isn't supported by basic common sense - if they're working on a multiplayer title it means they have less resources to allocate to other titles as opposed if they were singularly focused on a single player. Of course it's slowing it down, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm very confused by how you nitpick your timeline here. Between 2002-2015 you have a 2.6 year average. The last Bethesda RPG was in 2015, so we're around that timeline. 3 years. Maybe 4 depending on when TES6 comes out. You can't just randomly pick 2011 and say "It's been one RPG in 7 years" No, technically it's 2, you have to count the beginning mark Skryim - so that's 3.5 years. One extra year per your own acceptable average.

I think, again, this is just selective outrage and speculation. I'll speculate in the other direction and say that it's not these new directions that is having a detrimental affect (barely) on acceptable release timelines and say it's all those other titles I mentioned. You can make a distinction between BGS and all the other devs under BS, but even BS says that they and BGS and Zenimax are all one and the same. Just like with Valve and when Steam blew up, they've got a lot more stuff to handle on top of developing everyone's favorite games. They have to balance resources, and that doesn't just mean whatever devs technically assigned to the BGS group, but marketing, legal, etc. So when as a company you have these huge franchises like Doom and Wolfenstein and Dishonored and smaller hits like Prey and Evil Within, you have an obligation to them and all your other studios to balance things, dedicate resources to each release, and space things out. That's my take on it. And given how well BS has handled almost every franchise it's bought, I'm quite happy waiting longer in between releases. But I love FPS games more than RPGs so having them flood me with all those franchises in between Fallout is great for me. I can see how RPG nerds would cry about it.

 
I'm speculating but I'm not outraged or anything.  It just sounds like this iteration of Fallout is something I can safely ignore, much like the Fallout Shelter game.  I don't really care about Bethesda's true RPG per annum rating.

 
FoxAssGamer said:
Didn't you used to play Ark all the time?
Click to expand...
I did which is how I determined my interest in this style of game, especially when applied to a single player model. The initial survival part is fun and it was amusing feeding Malkan's building habit. And there was a 'chase' of sorts since the devs kept adding in new critters to find and tame. But then it crashed pretty hard.

And that was with dinosaurs. Rust, by comparison, didn't keep my interest nearly as long since it didn't include riding brontosauruses and giant eagles.

I'm not invested in not liking the game. It's not as though I'm saying "thank God, finally a Fallout game I can hate". If it turns out to be interesting then, cool, more games for me. From what I can tell so far, it's more "Meh" and me looking forward to games that are actually enticing me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see Fallout 76 playing out more like the division. Missions would probably work in a similar manner to that in that you meet together at the start point and move into an instanced "dungeon" together. Im sure you'll see the standard fetch, kill x minions, and take down big monster y overworld side quests as well to give the game so more meat, quality or not. 6 areas are in the game, making it easy to create distinct pvp/non pvp zones.

This would allow a solo player to knock out the main quests in the instanced portions, hit up a side quests in non pvp areas, and avoid other players if desired. Only issue would be occasional random nukes dropping on your head, which I would expect to be rare. The launch codes would probably be extremely rare drops from a mission you can only run once a day or something similar.

I think it's an interesting way to present the fallout universe and I have no concern as to this ruining the franchise. I'm also not terribly concerned about this delaying other projects. I think this is possibly a stopgap game to fill the hole that already existed due to the time they are taking to potentially build a new engine for their future games.
 
FoxAssGamer said:
I'm very confused by how you nitpick your timeline here. Between 2002-2015 you have a 2.6 year average. The last Bethesda RPG was in 2015, so we're around that timeline. 3 years. Maybe 4 depending on when TES6 comes out. You can't just randomly pick 2011 and say "It's been one RPG in 7 years" No, technically it's 2, you have to count the beginning mark Skryim - so that's 3.5 years. One extra year per your own acceptable average.

I think, again, this is just selective outrage and speculation. I'll speculate in the other direction and say that it's not these new directions that is having a detrimental affect (barely) on acceptable release timelines and say it's all those other titles I mentioned. You can make a distinction between BGS and all the other devs under BS, but even BS says that they and BGS and Zenimax are all one and the same. Just like with Valve and when Steam blew up, they've got a lot more stuff to handle on top of developing everyone's favorite games. They have to balance resources, and that doesn't just mean whatever devs technically assigned to the BGS group, but marketing, legal, etc. So when as a company you have these huge franchises like Doom and Wolfenstein and Dishonored and smaller hits like Prey and Evil Within, you have an obligation to them and all your other studios to balance things, dedicate resources to each release, and space things out. That's my take on it. And given how well BS has handled almost every franchise it's bought, I'm quite happy waiting longer in between releases. But I love FPS games more than RPGs so having them flood me with all those franchises in between Fallout is great for me. I can see how RPG nerds would cry about it.
Click to expand...
I picked since 2002 since that's when Bethesda Game Studios was formulated, and ended with 2015 because that's when the last BGS game came out. As for since Skyrim, I marked that to show the lowered level of output in terms of single player games since then. I thought it was pretty obvious. Fine, make it since 2012 then. That's one in 6 years. Again, I'm not sure how you can argue making FO76 hasn't decreased their single player game production since it's just factually false. It's really not debatable...if the team is focusing on FO76 then other titles aren't prioritized. Honestly with your follow up argument which is kind of nonsensical I feel like you're trolling,

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top